On May 7, 1722 the new landlord provided a document in which he guaranteed his tenant subjects in Kismányok the freedom to practice and exercise their religion. Izmény had not yet been settled at this time, but Kismányok later became the Mother Church of Izmény. This document provides the basic concepts behind the policy of the new landlord with regard to the religious question and it is good to take a closer look at it. Because it not only applied to Kismányok, but to other communities as well we will present it word for word:

“In 1722, on the seventh day of May, Christoph Carl and Philipp Plum, both tenant subjects of Kismáyok on my Domains, appeared here at my manor in the village of Apar, in the name and person of the whole community of their village and showing the utmost respect, reported to me that they had come from the German Reich some two years ago and found a home and shelter here on my Domains in the village of Kismányok and settled here, but they were adherents of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) and desired the free exercise of their religion and be allowed to carry out their religious obligations and humbly petitioned me to grant them the grace to call and support an Evangelical (Lutheran) pastor.

Because I did not want to get involved in religious quarrels but in order to further the best interests of my estates and assist in planting the Christian virtues among my subjects, I observed that I did not have to think over the matter of the free exercise of their Christian religion on my estates, so at the consideration of their pending request that this privilege would be granted to them as well as on all of my other estates that all of the religions of my subjects would be tolerated in the same way as they were recognized in the Kingdom of Hungary and I would provide the protection of these rights as far as it was possible for me to do so.”

It was signed, “Le Comte de Mercy mp.”

This promise for the free exercise of the religion of the inhabitants of Kismányok “as far as it was possible for him to guarantee” was effectively allowed in 1728.

From this document we can see that it is clear that for Mercy, the most important matter was that the subjects on his estates were to be left in peace so that they could concentrate on their work and if it were permissible and tolerated in the Kingdom of Hungary, he would make it possible for his colonists to have the freedom to practice their religion. The last part of that statement is the most important. He strongly adheres to Hungarian law and does not base religious freedom on the rights of the landowning nobles to determine the religion of their subjects. In his later policy we can vouch for his being faithful to the law. I have already reported what was then the current situation of the Protestants and in what ways they were tolerated. Accordingly, during the 1720s the only congregations on his Domains that were allowed to have a pastor were Sárszentlorinc (a Hungarian Lutheran congregation), Varsád and Kismányok (German Lutheran congregations). In the PesterAbschrift (the Transcript from Pest) of 1722 these villages were known to have a church and pastor, while all of the other Lutheran communities including Izmény were established that year or later. Kistormás was a different matter. It was founded in 1724 but was able to exist as a Mother Church. The other villages attempted to have pastors of their own. When they were successful, the pastors were then driven out of the community at the insistence of the Roman Catholic clergy and Mercy did nothing about it. He did so because he was obligated to do so, which the County records indicate clearly, because they were only allowed to serve in the previously mentioned villages that were included in the Pester Abschrift. Heinrich Kerri also comes to the same conclusions in his various writings and articles that have been published. Contrary opinions are offered in the research literature of Johann Weidlein for which he, however, provides no data or proof.

The Contract Agreements of Mercy with the Villages

The first contract agreements between the new landlord and his subjects were concluded on July 27, 1722. The only contracts that still exist are those with Kismányok, Högyesz, Kölesd and Sárszenlörinc. In the Protocols (Minutes) of the General Assembly of the County of Tolna it is reported that Mercy did not live up to his contractual agreements with Pálfa and Varsád. Felsönana and Diósberény agreed to a new urbarial contract based on their contract with Mercy in 1722. Weidlein still saw the contract with Kisvejke in the archives in Högyesz and also mentions the one from Mucsi. Two other inhabited villages at the time, Závod and Apar, apparently also concluded a contract like the other villages. Even though the beginnings of the settlement of Izmény and Hidegkút also took place in 1722, there are no records to indicate that these villages had concluded a contract in 1722. There is a high degree of probability this was due to the fact that the villages were inhabited by only a few settlers at the time or had failed to develop a village community. In these contracts of 1722 the peasant farmer with a full homestead (a man with six oxen) had to pay a tax of 15 Forint, 1 köböl (a cubic measure) of wheat, 1 köböl of oats to the landlord; the half homestead owner (with three oxen) paid half of the same; the quarter homestead owner (with two oxen) paid a quarter and the horse and cow owner who did not own a plough paid 3 Forint; the cottager (without livestock or a plough) paid 1 Forint and 50 Denar. The peasant farmer did not have to provide robot service (Corvé) to the landlord. They were free from paying taxes on their vineyards for the first six years, wood for building or to use as firewood was without cost. These contracts in 1722 were very generous on the part of the nobles and were used for the purpose of enticing more settlers on their Domains.

The next and much more stringent contracts were concluded in 1728. Three of them have survived. The one for Kismànyok on May 18, 1728 and the one for Hidegkút on May 26, 1728 were both in German, and the one for Pálfa on September 28, 1728 was written in Latin and all of them were concluded at Högyesz. While in the Kismányok and Hidegkút agreement in place of the one ninth of the crops and robot service a payment of 150 to 50 Forint was charged, and the butcher shop, as well as the wine shop remained in the hands of the village, these privileges were not granted in the contract with Pálfa. Mercy presented the contract with Pálfa to the General Assembly of the County of Tolna for its ratification on November 28, 1728 with good result and in all likelihood he used it as the basis for his contracts with the other villages in his Domains. So we can assume that the people of Izmény received a similar contract as the one for Pálfa in 1728. In this contract the tenants had the following duties: five days of free labour annually, 6 Forint tax on land, one ninth of all crops (with the exception of hemp and vegetable gardens) and all lambs, kids and bees; vineyards were free of tax for seven years, in the first year a payment of 40 Denars for the permission to settle, upon permission the use of wood for building and heating at a rate of 6 Kreutzer a year. Even though the concluded contracts in 1728 were much more stringent than those in the year 1722, the tenants had more rights and privileges than similar contracts concluded in Szekszárd in 1725.

In 1731 the Domain concluded new contracts in which the requirements were even more demanding. The robot (free labour) was raised from five to ten days per year. A move off of the estate required the landlord’s permission. The Arenda payment for each village was specially determined and for that reason the village could keep the butcher shop and wine shop in their own hands, but they needed to provide some of the wine for the landlord. The Domain used the former contract of 1725 as a basis for new contracts as did most of the other estate owners. The contract with Izmény is dated September 23, 1731. Kismányok, Kölesd and Sárszentlörinc did not have to provide any free labour because the Arenda fee was so high. Without exception these contracts that the individual villages had to sign were much more demanding than the earlier ones because of the increase in the number of days of free labour that had to be provided. There were rebellions in the villages of Varsád, Kistormás, Mucsi, Závod and Kalaznó. The officials of the Domain were forced to flee and wine set aside for the landlord was poured out on the ground. These actions were severely punished and the villages had to pay the cost of the damages.

Additional conctracts were concluded in the beginning of the 1740s but one dealing with Izmény has never been found.

As previously mentioned above, the obligations of the peasants from 1722 onwards became more stringent and demanding. This was not simply a local tendency in the Högyesz Domains and the Mercys. Throughout the whole country, especially in northern Hungary where the peasants had laboured even during the time of the Turks the duties and obligations of the peasants were always being increased. A peasant rebellion broke out in northern Hungary in 1765, the grounds for which were this situation of rising number of free days of labour for the landlords. There were no regulations governing the contracts of individual villages with their landlords in which the obligations of the tenants could be determined in a fair way for them. In Tolna County there were still relatively good relationships with ten days of free labour annually, in the Counties of Somogy and Fejér it was fifty-two days, in northern Hungary two to three days a week! The Urbarial Regulation Patent that Empress Maria Theresia (who ruled from 1740-1780) decreed on January 23, 1767 was meant to address this matter. The Patent also determined the contribution of the peasants in money, crops and labour. The free robot labour for a full peasant holding was a maximum of fifty-two working days working with a yoke of oxen, or one hundred and four days of labour by hand, for cottagers it was a maximum of eighteen days of hand labour and day labourers provided a maximum of twelve days of hand labour per year. Within this framework the obligations and contributions were determined in the negotiations with the individual villages and the contracts that were concluded was signed provisionally by the courts. The complaints of the peasants were brought to the attention of the Empress and her response to them was worked into the final contract. At this point I would like to quote from the Urbarial Contract of the village of Hidegkút because the individual points are similar to that of Izmény.

The Settlement of the German LutheransbyMercy

The settlement activities of the Mercys are well known in terms of when and where German Lutheran settlers were involved. There are no longer any remaining documents from this period pertaining to the settlement of Izmény, but with the assistance of the Church Records and the County Conscriptions we can establish a fairly accurate date for when it first occurred. After his study of the documents in the archives related to the settlement, Szita is of the opinion that it took place in 1721 at the earliest, but most likely after the purchase by the Mercys, that is, after June of 1722. According to Schmidt and Schilling the date 1720 was given as the year that the village was first settled. In George Bárány’s book dealing with the history of the Evangelical Lutheran congregations in the Tolna he gives 1719 as the year of the establishment of Izmény. In order to determine the date of the settlement as accurately as possible, we need to examine two sources: the Church Records and the Country Conscriptions.

The Church Records

The Church Records of Izmény were begun and kept since 1773 (marriages and deaths only begin in 1783). That means nothing relevant to our search can be found here. In Kismányok, as mentioned previously, the Church Books there are available from 1728 (the first set of Church Records from 1724-1728 has been lost) and information relating to the year of Izmény’s first settlement cannot be found here either. But in Majos, a neighboring village of Izmény, which at the time was on the estates of the nobleman Franz Kún, Church Records exist from 1720 but with some major gaps. The fact of the matter is that there are entries with regard to both Kismáyok and Izmény in these Majos records from this early period of settlement and will be dealt with again later and will be recognized to be of great importance. Here (in these records) we can find the following entries dealing with births (baptisms) in Izmény written by Pastor Johann Egerland:

Kilian Jung son of Georg Jung from Isme married the virgin Charlotta H. the daughter of Hans Taben from Isme.

We can see that there were numerous entries related to Izmény in the Majos Church Records between October 1722 and July 1723.

The Tolna County Conscription Lists

The County undertook the gathering of the information for the Conscription List for the use of the Roman Catholic Church, the County institutions and the landlords, if they did not develop separate lists of their own, in order to determine their resources and income. In these lists the names of the inhabitants are indicated along with columns of other pertinent information (the Latin equivalents are provided at the end of the description in brackets followed by an abbreviation). (See the table on page 36)

Izmény is not mentioned in the Conscription Lists in the years 1715, 1720, 1721 and 1723. The first reference to the village occurs in the Conscription of 1724 and following that, the village appears in numerous documents between 1724 and 1752. The list of names in this first Conscription is of great significance in terms of determining the date of the original settlement of the village, as well as being of major importance in providing certain aspects of information that deal with various family histories and for that reason the list is quoted below. In this first Conscription of 1724 we can read the following and every person listed is freed from the obligation of paying taxes:

This Conscription indicates at the outset that Izmény is a “neopossessio” or new village. Six families arrived in June of 1722 and fourteen additional families in November of 1723. At this point we need to mention a rather interesting fact: the six families the list indicates that could be looked upon as the first settlers in the village also appear in the Conscription for the village of Mucsi in 1721. In 1722/1723 two of the families, Lorenz Meinhardt and Conrad Hoffmann are mentioned there again in the Conscription of 1723, but it is noted that Milltrauss, Hoffmann and Menghort had left for Izmény. Conrad Hoffmann and Lorenz Meinhard are the first to be identified with Izmény and for whom an arrival date is provided: June of 1722. Millhauser was already listed as a taxpayer in 1725, which means he must have been in the village since 1722. On the basis of this, about one half of the original settlers had moved there from Mucsi. During the period during which Zinzendorf was the landlord of Mucsi both Lutherans and Roman Catholics had been settled there. When the Roman Catholics became the absolute majority the Lutherans found this unwelcome and Mercy their new landlord resettled them in the prairie of Izmény along with a newly arrived group of colonists who were also Lutherans, (Heinrich Liebegott, Johannes Lotz, Heinrich Neumann, Heinrich Neun, Johannes Schenk, Johann Heinrich Schlöder, Opperman Wilhelm and Andreas Theil).

The second Conscription from the year 1724/1725 (all of the persons listed were not obligated to pay taxes:

In this document the first known Richter (mayor), Cosmus Schütz is named. The first group in the list became taxpaying in the next year, the second group had possessed their land for one year and the third group consisted of fifteen new settlers who arrived around the Feast of Penetcost in 1724. (The Day of Pentecost was on June 4, 1724.) Altogether there were thirty-four families that were conscripted.

Of the eleven taxpaying families, nine of them were full peasants and two (Oppermann and Nein) were cottagers and in addition Johannes Kindermann was also registered as one.

In this list there are an additional fifteen families. In the first group of those who are taxpaying families there are some new families: Lotz, Fusz, Oppermann, Klos, Schenk, Millhaus and Kindermann. They came to Izmény after 1722 or they came to settle later from one of the neighboring villages. With regard to the Millhaus family this can be substantiated by another source. The family came to Izmény from Mucsi in 1722.

In the above Conscription there is a Latin notation that needs to be taken into account. The settlement of Izmény was begun in 1722 with a few Germans, who were granted three years of freedom from paying taxes by the Domains of the Highly Esteemed Imperial Field Marshal Count Mercy who is also the present day owner.

There were sixteen peasant homesteads and fourteen cottagers that were paying taxes. The growth and increase of the numbers of tax paying families compared to the list of 1725-1726 is due to the fact that those who arrived at the end of 1723 appear as taxpayers for the first time in this Conscription.

In total, there were thirty-seven taxpaying families that were mentioned. Through an analysis of the cited texts we can establish with a great deal of certainty that the initial settlement of the village took place in mid 1722 and we can identify three phases of settlement taking place. The first phase that brought about the greatest number of German colonists to Izmény was the period between 1722 and 1725. By 1725 there were about fifty families who had settled in Izmény. The second phase lasted somewhat longer, from 1726 to 1752. During this period the settlers came from Germany in smaller numbers but Izmény also received new families through inner migration (marriages and migrants from neighbouring Lutheran villages). The place of origin of these settlers during these first two phases is without exception from Hesse.

The third phase consists of the years from 1752 to 1764. In this time frame numerous families from the Duchy of Baden-Durlach arrived in Izmény (especially in the years 1752 and 1764). At the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century more families arrived individually in Izmény primarily from Württemberg, but they did not play an influential role in the development of the community life of the village.

Places of Origin of the Settlers in Izmény

In the year 1756 a compilation of all of the villages of the Tal District on the Domains of His Excellency Count Mercy was undertaken. Although this list is not entirely complete, we do find the places of origin of fifteen Izmény inhabitants and is therefore both unusual and valuable. Because of its great importance I would like to present this Latin document in a German translation (and now in English).

In the Village of Izmény

Johannes Georgius Adam born in Germany in the province of Vetterau in the village of Untermuchsstat came as a child and did not have a house of his own.

Johannes Heinrich Ticzl (Tetzel) came from Germany from the province of Ketern from the town of Ottenberg and arrived in the village of Virágo in the Baranya and came to Izmény two years ago. He does not have a house of his own.

Adamus Chirchner (Kirchner) came from Germany from the region of Otting from the village of Egercz and arrived here. He has no house of his own.

Johannes Mutt (Muth) came from Germany from the Estates of Ritesel from the village of Fraistain and arrived here. He does not have a house of his own.

Johannes Georgius Hosz came from Germany from the earldom of Darmstadt from the village of Pogercz and arrived here. He does not have a house of his own.

Adamus Tering (Thiering) came from Germany from the province of Hesse and the village of Senstat and first arrived in the village of Tófü four years ago and then moved here. He has no house of his own.

Philip Jacobus Nosz came from Germany from the province of Monnhaim and the village of Helmszlaim and arrived here. He has no house of his own.

Michael Helczl came from the province of Monnhaim and the village of Helmszlaim and arrived here. He has no house of his own.

Johannes Cajser (Kaiser) came from Germany from the region of Gettingen from the village of Muchstat, he lived in the village of Nagyszekely for two years and moved to Izmény from there. He has no house of his own.

Johannes Reder came from Germany from the estates of Ridesel from the village of Nidermosz and arrived here. He has no house of his own.

Georgius Khabes came from Germany from the Duchy of Durlach and the village of Krebe and arrived here. He has no house of his own.

Johannes Volgangus Schád came from Germany and the bishopric of Fulda from the village of Longesvarcz and lived in the village of Nagy Manyok for several years and later moved to Tófü before moving to Izméy. He does not own his own house.

Conradus Sultausz came from Germany from Hesse-Darmstadt and the city of Taunhaim and first arrived in Murga and then moved to Izmény. He does not own his own house.

Vilhelmus Bernhardus Keszl (Kessel) came from Germany from the region of Tilling and the village of Muchstak and arrived in Tófü the year before moving to Izmény. He does not own his own house.

Sebastianus Vilmon came from Germany from Hanov County and the village of Langsstat and arrived here. He has no house of his own.

In many cases the documents related to the emigration from Germany and their settlement in Hungary are missing (large numbers of the documents associated with the emigration from the German principalities that were in various state archives were destroyed during the Second World War) and the researcher has to rely on the German and Hungarian Church Records that are available in order to establish the places of origin of the settlers. This is a very arduous task and one that cannot ever be fully concluded. But in spite of that, my ongoing research in this regard has resulted in some significant results. follows:

When we consider the location of the known places of origin of the first wave of settlers (Echzell, Radmühl, Bleichenbach, Reichelsheim, Glauberg, Leidhecken, Effolderbach, Rodenbach, Wallernhausen, Reimenrod, Grebenau, Eulersdorf) we find ourselves in the region that is approximately 50 kilometers north east of Frankfurt-an-Main in the area of Franconia in the vicinity of Alsfeld. The exceptions are Radmühl (which lies somewhat east of Frankfurt in the Duchy of Riedesel) Altheim (in the vicinity of Darmstadt) and Sachsenhausen (close by Wertheim). Echzell belonged to Hesse-Darmstadt at the time of the emigration, Glauberg and Stockheim belonged to the Duchy of Stolberg, and Bleichenbach and Reichelsheim were part of the Duchy of Hanau.

The places of origin of the second wave of settlers (Ober-Mockstadt, Stockheim, Rohrbach and several of the above mentioned villages) are also primarily in the same region. An exception is Lanzingen that is east of Frankfurt in the Duchy of Hanau and also Langenschwarz to the south east from the above region and lying north of Alsfeld.

The original homeland of the third and final wave is overwhelmingly from Baden-Durlach near the city of Karlsruhe (Spöck, Graben, Münzesheim, Helmsheim, Teutschneureut) and in the former Duchy of Riedesel (Wünschen-Moos, Nieder-Moos, Freiensteinau). Among this stream of settlers the Holzinger, Fink and Ackermann families also arrived but their places of origin are unknown.
The Inhabitants of Izmény in the County Conscriptions and the Conscriptions of the Domain Between 1724 and 1773

The County Conscriptions Between 1724 and 1773

In the pages that follow the heads of families and households according to the Conscriptions supplemented by the Church Records provide a summary of the first fifteen years of settlement (between 1724 and 1738). During this time frame the Conscriptions were undertaken annually and give a good overview of the first inhabitants of the village. Later such documentations were undertaken only in 1742 and 1752. Those persons only mentioned in the Church Records (Bram Johannes, Schiller Johann Peter) were not included in this listing. The Table is on the following pages. It should be mentioned further that the Urbarial Regulation of 1773 as well as a painstakingly accurate Conscription that occurred in 1828 were not taken into account because their contents do not coincide with the data in the Conscriptions of 1742 and 1752.

The Conscriptions of the Domain 1735 and 1761

Another source in addition to the Church Records and the County Conscriptions is the detailed listing of the inhabitants of the Högyesz Domains for the period between 1735 and 1741 as well as 1755 and 1761 that have been kept in the County Archives in Tolna and are available to this day. We can read names here that cannot be found either in the County Conscriptions or the Church Records. The Table with the information from these Conscriptions follows that of the aforementioned Table above (the spelling of the trades/professions in the Table are taken from the original).

The descriptions in the Conscriptions between 1755 and 1761 will be beyond our scope of interest (in these Conscriptions alongside of the economic data related to the inhabitants, a portion of them include the trades and the number of single and married sons of the head of the family, which make them much more detailed than those from 1735 to 1741). In the section: “Economic Conditions in Izmény in the 18th Century”, I will provide a summary of the economic indicators of 1755/56.

(Translator’s Note: The Tables found on page 54-56 deal with the information taken from the Tax Conscriptions and Church Records from 1724 to 1738 and are not reproduced on this site. To access the detailed information you require a copy of the book, but for the reader’s information the names of the settlers are included for their reference. The headings for the columns in the table are as follows: The Name of the settler, date of arrival in Izmény, first mention in the Church Records, and columns for each year from 1724 to 1738 to indicate specific data with regard to the person in terms of the Tax List.)

(Translator’s Note: The Tables found on pages 57 to 60 deal with information taken from the Conscriptions of the Domain from 1735 to 1741 and are not reproduced on this site. To access the detailed information you require a copy of the book but for the reader’s information the names of the settlers are included for their reference. The headings for the columns include: The name of the person, and columns for the years 1735/1736 to 1740/41 and information regarding the person. If they are mentioned there is a (.) in the column. Some trades or positions in the village are indicated and if so I have included it with their name in brackets.)

An epidemic raged throughout Trans Danubia in the summer and fall of 1739. The pestilence did not spare Izmény and its environs. I would like to share the comments of George Müller who was the Richter of the village and who lived from 1888-1966:

“The plague affected the greater portion of the population of Izmény in the period from June 3rd up to October 16th in 1739 and claimed so many victims that only one or two households were spared. Whole extended families died out. Many families bricked in their doors and windows and believed they could save themselves from the “Black Death” in this way. There are still various stories that are currently being told about the time of the pestilence. We were told that the people of Izmény could only drink water from a small well between the village pastures and the boundary with Kismányok and they took their cooked food there with them but only as far as Saulochpuszta (now known as Anna Major). In memory of the epidemic of 1739 the survivors planted a willow tree beside the well. This willow tree is still standing today (1948). The tree had a deep cut of about one and a half meters at the level of the height of a man, and is probably dieing (if it has not already done so). In thanksgiving to God our ancestors declared June 3rd and October 16th as special days of penitence and prayer. These two days were strictly observed in my childhood, so that no one took a step in the direction of their pasture or did any kind of work. Specific fines and punishments were imposed on transgressors. The victims of the plague were buried in a separate cemetery (today Sauwasen). It was later turned into a ploughed field. During ploughing, other field work and digging there were always skulls, skeletons, ribs, arms, leg bones that were brought to light.”

The fundamentals that provided the basis for this description written by George Müller were the stories he had heard at school in his childhood and from his relatives and other older villagers. This history associated with the plague, that I also still heard about from my own grandparents, was very much like what I was told about our gracious landlords the Mercys, that were passed on from generation to generation and were still very much alive in the 20th century. They likely contained a great deal of truth. Without a doubt the plague claimed a lot of victims, but I need to add another factor into these stories. In the various listings of families in this book the reader can find numerous families that for example had children baptized before and after the epidemic. But not only small children and the elderly fell victim to the plague (while others could have died out of weakness after first recovering). It is without question that entire families died out, but their number was small. The Millhauser family is certainly one of them. The total number of victims cannot be estimated with much certainty because the death register in the Church Records in the village exist only beginning in 1783. The Church Records in Kismányok in terms of its Marriage Register gives us a good guiding principle in our quest for a possible estimate of the numbers of victims. Between October 20th to November 24th the following couples who married were both widowed (the women are identified by the family name of their former husbands, and if one of the partners was single it is so designated):

The twenty couples are listed on page 61. The term “Ledig” means single.

This list provides the background for determining with a great degree of accuracy that from among the forty persons who married, thirty-one brides and grooms had been widowed and their marriage partners would have been between the ages of 20 to 50 years of age.

At that time Izmény consisted of 28 peasant homesteads and households and sixteen cottagers and their families in the Taxation Summary of 1737/1738. If we calculate seven to nine persons per household (father, mother, children, their parents or in-laws) we arrive at a population of about four hundred persons. On the basis of our findings in terms of the widowed who remarried from the forty-four households in the village we can project the death rate on the whole village in the neighbourhood of 110 to 130 persons. That means that about one third of the inhabitants of the community died of plague. In order to recover its population new settlers arrived from the villages to the north within the Domain and also through marriage especially in terms of Kistormás, Varsád, and Felsönana. In addition in 1741 new settlers also arrived from Germany. The family, headed by Ludwig Christian Wolf of Glauberg arrived in 1741 (he was the son of the pastor there) as well as the family of Johannes Zinn who had been the schoolmaster there and would later become the schoolmaster in Izmény. In my own opinion the settlement of these two families in Izmény was not coincidental. In all likelihood they came in response to the invitation of Johannes Schenk who was also born in Glauberg and had settled in Izmény in 1722. By the end of the 1740s the population of the village increased to the level it had achieved prior to the plague.

In the Lutheran Church Records in Kismányok we can read the following in the register of deaths for 1739:

“In this year, those persons who died of the plague (who counted for more than ninety deaths) are not listed here.”

The plague also raged in the Mother Church in Kismányok and took about the same number of victims as in Izmény.